Possible bad news RE: Turkey and Iraq

[ChumpDumper]

Turkey Says Its Troops Can Cross Iraq Border

By SEBNEM ARSU
Published: October 10, 2007

ISTANBUL, Oct. 9 — Turkey took a step toward cross-border military action in Iraq today, as a council of the country’s top political and military leaders issued a statement today allowing troops to cross to eliminate separatist Kurdish rebel camps in the mountainous northern region.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Burhan Ozbilici/Associated Press

Turkey’s move toward military action comes in the face of strong opposition by the United States, which is anxious to maintain peace in that area, one of the rare regions of stability in conflict-torn Iraq.

All government offices and institutions have been ordered “to take all economic and political measures, including cross-border operations when necessary, in order to end the existence of the terror organization in a neighboring country,” said the statement, which was released by the Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s office.

After the meeting, Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul told the semi-official Anatolian News Agency said that the parliamentary approval normally needed for cross-border movement of troops was not needed for special units’ in hot pursuit of Kurdish separatist rebels, who have launched a recent series of hit-and-run attacks from bases in northern Iraqi mountains. A landmine that exploded Sunday in southeastern Sirnak Province, about 15 miles from the Iraq border, killed 13 soldiers, one of the highest death tolls in recent years from attacks by the separatist Kurdish Workers’ Party, or P.K.K.

Some analysts said that give the complicated relations among Turkey, Iraq and the United States, Turkey would continue to consider military action a last resort....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/world/europe/10turkey.html

Hopefully that last sentence is true.

[clambake]

i just read all the articles on this.

if turkey strikes, does that make them a member of the axis of evil?

cause, you know, anyone thats against us must accept the label of "terrorist".

[PixelPusher]

"pre-emptive warfare" isn't so great when it's some other country's foreign policy, huh?

[spurster]

I don't think it is pre-emptive. Some Turkish Kurds are in based in Kurdistan, raiding over the border, at least according to the story.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

MCFLYYYY
Every bozo knows preemptive strikes are only morally justifiable if USA or Israel uses them.

[boutons_]

Pakistan is looking wonderful, too

========

250 Dead in 4 Days of Pakistan Clashes

By Imtiaz Ali and Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, October 9, 2007; 3:48 PM

PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Oct. 9 -- Up to 250 people, including at least 45 soldiers, have been killed in fierce fighting in northwestern Pakistan over the past four days, with Pakistani military jets bombing suspected insurgent hide-outs amid tough resistance, officials and residents said Tuesday.

The military said that at least 150 insurgents had been killed in the battles in North Waziristan, a remote tribal region that al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters have used as a base for operations.

The most intense clashes have come in the town of Mir Ali, where the military has deployed heavy artillery, helicopter gunships and fighter jets to try to oust insurgents who have been waging an aggressive campaign against the Pakistani army. The use of fighter jets is unusual, but government officials said it was necessary given the strength of the firepower they were facing from the insurgents.

"The resistance from local Taliban is tougher than what the government usually expects," conceded a tribal affairs official in Peshawar, the capital of North-West Frontier province. "Such tough resistance also gives credence to speculation that al-Qaeda-trained foreign fighters might be backing these local Taliban"

The fighting, which began late Saturday with an insurgent strike on a military convoy, has taken a heavy toll on civilians. There were reports Tuesday of large numbers of casualties among residents caught in the crossfire. Civilians in some villagers used mosque loudspeakers to appeal to both sides not to target homes or shopping areas.

Meanwhile, a full-scale exodus was underway for those who were able to leave.

Mohammad Zarin, 33, made it from Mir Ali to the nearby town of Bannu Tuesday with his mother, wife, three children, sister-in-law, three nephews and two nieces.

"It was a hard decision to leave our home in Mir Ali. But life is more precious than material things," Zarin said by phone. "We decided to leave our home for the sake of our children."

Zarin said his older brother had stayed behind to look after the family's home.

"The first priority of every family is to take their women and children to a safer place, and leave one person at home to take care of the household," he said.

For others, it was too late.

"I have seen people digging graves for the dead bodies," said Malik Mumtaz, a tribal elder from North Waziristan. "Others are busy rushing their injured to the nearby hospitals."

He said that many of those wounded had to be taken to hospitals in Bannu or Peshawar because electricity had been cut in North Waziristan and the hospitals were out of medicine.

Military officials conceded the heavy fighting may have resulted in civilian casualties, though they would not give specifics.

Mumtaz said two Pakistani army jets had bombed the village of Aipi at around 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, killing about 50 tribesmen.

That account was impossible to verify. Waziristan has become inaccessible even to most Pakistanis from outside the area, and aid groups long ago had to shutter their operations there. The few local journalists who are able to report from the region do so covertly.

Rising militancy in the tribal areas has been a major concern for the United States. Tuesday's fighting came as the White House released a report that again pointed to Pakistan's tribal belt as an operational headquarters for al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.

The problem was only exacerbated, the White House has said, by a 2006 peace deal in North Waziristan that required the Pakistani military to pull back to its barracks. The deal fell apart this summer, but many critics contend that Pakistan is now suffering the consequences of a policy that allowed extremist groups to rebuild.

"I have said repeatedly that the peace agreement with the tribals in Pakistan failed Pakistan and it failed us," Frances Fragos Townsend, White House homeland security adviser, said in a conference call with reporters. "And obviously, that's one of the fundamental things that al-Qaeda took advantage of to reestablish a safe haven in the tribal areas."

Townsend refrained from directly criticizing embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Instead, she emphasized the U.S. commitment to working with his government. "We have enjoyed some of our biggest successes with our allies in Pakistan," Townsend said, noting the arrest by Pakistani authorities of several key al-Qaeda operatives in recent years.

Musharraf's cooperation with the United States on counter-terrorism efforts has not been popular in Pakistan.

"The military operations are being conducted for the sole purpose of appeasing the United States at the expense of innocent tribesmen who have nothing to do with al-Qaeda and the Taliban," said Mumtaz, the tribal elder.

Pakistan's military has lost more than 250 soldiers in fighting over the past three months. Another 250 remain in Taliban custody after they surrendered to a group of insurgents in late August.

On Tuesday, residents of Waziristan reported seeing scores of bodies -- including beheaded Pakistani soldiers -- on the outskirts of Mir Ali as they fled the area.

Witte reported from Islamabad, Pakistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100900469.html?hpid=topnews

=============

never fear, cowboy commander dubya is mounted up, God wants him to, and ready to defend This Great Country of Ours.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

never fear, cowboy commander dubya is mounted up, God wants him to, and ready to defend This Great Country of Ours.

croutons, answer this question. And don't give me any rhetoric or profanity or anything...

Q: Why do you have such a problem with Bush having faith in God, but never call out guys like Osama for hijacking their faith for political and militaristic (sending people to die in suicide attacks) use?

[clambake]

bush has faith in God? bush uses phomy expressions of faith FOR YOU.

[boutons_]

I have no objection to dubya having faith in God or anything.

But he did say God wanted him to be President, so his abuse of God for political purposes, pandering to dumbfuck radical "Christians", is fair game. I'm sure God wants me to trash dubya forever. :lol

So when I trash your boy dubya, he's truly a POS, I'm a jihadi apologist? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

Damn, you simplistic red-neck dubya suckers are dumb bunch of twits.

Have you sent dubya your $7000 check to pay for your part of dubya's oil grab war?

[ChumpDumper]

I am totally pleased that Musharraf is trying to kick ass again in Waziristan since Bush decided to give up on the Taliban and the real Al Qaeda to occupy Iraq for four years and counting. I just hope the Supreme Court there doesn't try to invalidate his latest election.

[PixelPusher]

I am totally pleased that Musharraf is trying to kick ass again in Waziristan since Bush decided to give up on the Taliban and the real Al Qaeda to occupy Iraq for four years and counting. I just hope the Supreme Court there doesn't try to invalidate his latest election.
Apparently, in Pakistan being Army Chief is more important than being president, since he seems loathe to take off the uniform.

[ChumpDumper]

I can't give too much of a crap about that. Dude has been in the middle of the shitstorm and really is our most important ally in the war on terra that could actually affect the US.

[clambake]

I am totally pleased that Musharraf is trying to kick ass again in Waziristan since Bush decided to give up on the Taliban and the real Al Qaeda to occupy Iraq for four years and counting. I just hope the Supreme Court there doesn't try to invalidate his latest election.
i guess we'll find out if his bite has any teeth.

or if we'll use his teeth to identify him.

[ChumpDumper]

He and by extension Pakistan is in the most precarious position of any of our allies. If there are objections about how he got and kept power, I definitely prefer him as the devil I know.

[clambake]

He and by extension Pakistan is in the most precarious position of any of our allies. If there are objections about how he got and kept power, I definitely prefer him as the devil I know.
but...what if the opposite gained control.

wouldn't that enable us to declare "open season"?

or are you just happy with someone else as an aggressor, in other words, not just us?

[boutons_]

Yep, precarious is a good word for stability in PK.

Going after the insurgents is fine with me, but not if it leads to a general uproar and overthrow of Musharraf.

[ChumpDumper]

At this point we can't do anything else but pound sand. It sucks that we spent all our military might and international goodwill in Iraq. We really had AQ on the ropes and could have finished them off if we had somehow leveraged an entry into Waziristan. It definitely could have ended up as bad as Iraq, but at least it would have been for a good cause. As it is we have half-assed the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

CD comes correct FINALLY.
Its funny because I was just about to suggest we resort to sandpounding it hardcore to elicit a CD response, and here he is with a preemptive pro-sandpounding post.

Where are all our special elite forces? The true way to deal with all this shit is like CD said, when we had AQ on the ropes we should have taken it to where they were. Can you imagine a unilateral decision to bring the most grizzled shock forces into a well researched campaign in that mountainous terrain? Fighting enemies in that terrain at least has the benefit of little or no civilian interaction....we could have shot to kill any motherfucker we saw and if it took *gasp* years it would have been for a good cause....
If we had ended up winning our generals would be looked at as military geniuses if nothing else. But heroes would have been a good possibility as well.

[ChumpDumper]

What's this "finally" crap? I've been saying some variation of this for four years.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It was a joke..
But seriously, even if we had taken it to them, the campaign would have required the world's greatest military minds, and could have resulted in a shitload more US troop casualties during the initial phases. But its better to fight guerillas that use terrain than guerillas that use civilians IMO.
LOL, if we had gone to war there Halliburton would have shit a brick.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, it would have been crazy difficult, but we could have just said it would be a cakewalk to assure popular support.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I think two or three presidents down the road we are going to have to eventually invade that area with troops, but later other groups would just move in once we left....
I don't see militant groups abandoning that area ever.

[BeerIsGood!]

Shit, over the last several decades we have gradually become the damn babysitter trying to control a bunch of little kids. We should have left them to kill each other, Israel be damned.

[Nbadan]

By SELCAN HACAOGLU
Associated Press Writer



SIRNAK, Turkey --Turkish warplanes bombed positions of suspected Kurdish rebels Wednesday, and the prime minister said preparations for parliamentary approval of a military mission against separatist fighters in Iraq were under way.

A cross-border operation could hurt Turkey's relationship with the United States, which opposes Turkish intervention in northern Iraq, a region that has escaped the violence afflicting much of the rest of the country.

-----------------------------

Turkey and the United States are NATO allies, but ties have also been tense over a U.S. congressional bill that would label the mass killings of Armenians by Turks around the time of World War I as genocide. President Bush strongly urged Congress to reject the bill, saying it would do "great harm" to U.S.-Turkish relations.

---------------------------------------

Turkish troops blocked rebel escape routes into Iraq while F-16 and F-14 warplanes and Cobra helicopters dropped bombs on possible hideouts, Dogan news agency reported. The military had dispatched tanks to the region to support the operation against the rebel Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, in response to more than a week of deadly attacks in southeastern Turkey.

Link (http://www.bnd.com/283/story/149436.html)

[ChumpDumper]

It's a good thing we are passing meaningless measures in Congress about the Turks committing genocide during WWI. Their full cooperation in the war on terra is assured!

[TDMVPDPOY]

imo the americans shouldve just continued the assault on AQ in afghanistan and pakistan, seriously its more easier to identiy the difference from a paki to a AQ/Taliban...

[ChumpDumper]

It's a good thing we are passing meaningless measures in Congress about the Turks committing genocide during WWI. Their full cooperation in the war on terra is assured!Well, they are recalling their ambassador to the US for 10 days.

They're pissed.

[xrayzebra]

It's a good thing we are passing meaningless measures in Congress about the Turks committing genocide during WWI. Their full cooperation in the war on terra is assured!


Has anyone heard why our most wonderful Congress did
this. At who's urging. I haven't read or heard why.

[Nbadan]

The US is getting involved because the Armenian Americans are trying to show their politcal power. I don't think there is even a resolution every passed in the Congress condemning Germany for the Holocaust, or Cambodia for the Genocide there. From growing up in Southern California, where there is a sizable Armenian Community, there was always some sort of attack on the Turkish Consulate, or Turkish Banks.

However, Turkey has taken a very hard-line approach to all this for years. There should be some sort of reconciliation, or something to try to come to a consensus. It wasn't Turkey that the genocide happened but the Ottoman Empire, which remnants of the Quagmire in Iraq are still playing a part, given they used the Sunni Arabs to run the place back then as well.

In addition to bringing in our vehicles overland to Iraq, I read elsewhere today that 1/3 of the gasoline and diesel that our troops need comes in through Turkey, and 70% of the supplies flown in for our folks either pass over Turkish airspace or land at our base in Incirlik on their journey. I want to get out of Iraq, but cutting off supplies will not make an organized and safe re-deployment.

The Turks must eventually come to grips with their ancestor's behavior, and the Armenians really have a point, but now is not the time. Political payback must wait as well, while we focus on the problems of U.S., Iraq and the region.

[Nbadan]

Check out this statement from Cheney regarding Turkey's preemptive strike...


"The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions."

Linky (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2002/nss5.html)

Doh!

:hat

[Nbadan]

Yeah, like exposing intelligence sources prematurely to promote more war...

Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst
By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 21, 2005; Page A01


A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.[QUOTE]

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html)

But don't worry, another Neo-con jumped on this intelligence leak knife....

[Nbadan]

Well, this is one way to stop the war.....

By BRIAN KNOWLTON


WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 — The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, insisted today that she would bring to a vote a resolution condemning the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey nearly a century ago as genocide, even as a Turkish general warned that this could cause lasting damage to a military relationship crucial to American forces in Iraq.

A House committee on Wednesday approved the nonbinding resolution declaring the killings, which began in 1915, , as genocide, and Ms. Pelosi, the California Democrat, reiterated today that “I’ve said if it passed the committee that we would bring it to the floor.”

But in Ankara, the Turkish military chief, Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, said that if the full House passes the resolution, “our military relations with the United States can never be the same,” Reuters reported. “The U.S. shot its own foot,” he told the Turkish newspaper Milliyet.

General Buyukanit’s comment came just days after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan cautioned that bilateral relations with the United States, a key partner in NATO, were endangered. Turkey has recalled its ambassador from Washington for consultations

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/washington/14cnd-turkey.html?hp)

If Congress wants to get though with Turkey, the Pelosi needs to quit spinning this by using the Armenian genocide.....Turkey, like Iran is shelling Kurd villages....

Turkey Shells Iraq Border Areas Amid Incursion Talk


ARBIL, Iraq (AFP) — Turkish troops Sunday sent shells crashing across the Iraqi border into several villages in the autonomous Kurdish region, officials said, as Ankara prepared to ask MPs to approve a ground incursion.

Residents of a village near the northern Iraq border town of Zakhu fled after shells slammed into their homes and farms during a day-long bombardment that caused major damage but no casualties, Kurdistan regional government spokesman Jamal Abdullah told AFP.

"From this morning until early evening there was a Turkish attack on villagers near Zakhu," Abdullah said. "There were no casualties but lots of damage and many families fled to safer areas."

An army officer had earlier told AFP on condition of anonymity that cross-border shelling in a number of areas began Saturday around 10:00 pm (1900 GMT) and carried on sporadically into Sunday. Most of the shells landed in open land, he added.

A witness said the shells hit around villages in the Al-Amadiyah area about 15 kilometres (nine miles) from the frontier and 50 kilometres northeast of the town of Dohuk.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday that he was ready to brave international censure should his country decide to deal ruthlessly with Kurdish rebel bases in Iraq.

A government bill seeking the go-ahead to launch an incursion any time in the next year is expected to be submitted to parliament after a cabinet meeting on Monday.

Link (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h5nv5iE6rzZQvJbbf_mOPcTGwx7Q)

[Wild Cobra]

Turkey and the United States are NATO allies, but ties have also been tense over a U.S. congressional bill that would label the mass killings of Armenians by Turks around the time of World War I as genocide. President Bush strongly urged Congress to reject the bill, saying it would do "great harm" to U.S.-Turkish relations.

This is a disgrace that our congress would condemn a government that had nothing to do with their past. This goes beyond condemning us for our past transgressions because we are still the same government under the same laws. Turkey of the past is not the same Turkey of today in that regard. They are effectively a different nation. This government of Turkey established in 1923 has nothing to do with the past government, part of the Ottoman Empire, and the Armenians Genocide.

The democrats are just fanning the flames to lose out supply lines for the troops in my opinion.

Fucking traitors!

[ChumpDumper]

You guys use that word so much it has lost its meaning.

[Nbadan]

....traitors is so last week, It's Move-on.org, George Soros, Nanci Pelosi..traitors....

[Wild Cobra]

....traitors is so last week, It's Move-on.org, George Soros, Nanci Pelosi..traitors....
So what would you call them for fanning the flames?

Are they ignorant of the facts? If so should they be in congress?

These are intelligent people. They know what they are doing. If not, they should be removed from office for incompetence. They only answer I see is that they are intentionally harming our relations. This is scandalous at the least. I find no pleasure in calling them traitors, but that's exactly how I feel.

Those of you who like the democrats, what are they? Ignorant or troublemakers?

[ChumpDumper]

These are intelligent people. They know what they are doing. If not, they should be removed from office for incompetence. They only answer I see is that they are intentionally harming our relations. This is scandalous at the least. I find no pleasure in calling them traitors, but that's exactly how I feel.I feel exactly the same way about the Bush administration.

[clambake]

I feel exactly the same way about the Bush administration.
feeling that way makes you a traitor, so.......there, take that!

[Nbadan]

Some phony Generals stepping up to the plate:

Abizaid: ‘We’ve Treated The Arab World As A Collection Of Big Gas Stations’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/15/abizaid-middle-east-gas-station)

Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez blasted the Bush administration today for a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan” (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/12/former-top-general-rips-bush%e2%80%99s-iraq-policy)

[Wild Cobra]

Dan, the second article you posted is very biased. Where is says:


“There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” he said, adding later in his remarks that civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power.”

This is part of the other thread (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79374) where I gave the complete transcript (http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html). These quotes refers to all the leaders in the legislative and executive branch. Not the president alone. In fact, we never singles the president out. When you read the whole thing, it becomes obvious that he blames the media and congress the most. These snippets are cherry picking to make the message wrong.

[xrayzebra]

You guys use that word so much it has lost its meaning.


In this case it absolutely fits. Nancy knows exactly what
she and her Congress is doing. WC is correct on all counts.
She wants to support the troops some more and cut off
that supply route. She is a damn traitor in every sense of
the word.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao Sanchez blames others too, therefore Bush is blameless.

[xrayzebra]

:lmao He blames others too, therefore Bush is blameless.


No problem right CD, Nancy girl is your type of gal.
Supports your ideas and you her's. You all make a
nice pair. Mr. and Mrs. I support the troops, just don't
support their mission. Yeah, right!

[ChumpDumper]

No problem right CD, Nancy girl is your type of gal.
Supports your ideas and you her's. You all make a
nice pair. Mr. and Mrs. I support the troops, just don't
support your mission. Yeah, right!I said she was stupid, dummy. Not my fault you can't read.

Bush is ultimately responsible for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq.

That's where the buck stops.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

This is a disgrace that our congress would condemn a government that had nothing to do with their past. This goes beyond condemning us for our past transgressions because we are still the same government under the same laws. Turkey of the past is not the same Turkey of today in that regard. They are effectively a different nation. This government of Turkey established in 1923 has nothing to do with the past government, part of the Ottoman Empire, and the Armenians Genocide.

The democrats are just fanning the flames to lose out supply lines for the troops in my opinion.

Fucking traitors!


All the more reason turkey's political busybodies should not get their panties in a wad over this and realize its a goal being pursed for purely domestic reasons.
Which they undoubtedly realize....
Its just a faction of turkey's general population that most likely is being truly outraged over this. Not the leaders.

therefore

We can assume this withdrawing of ambassadors is done for purely domestic reasons as well.
The know-it-alls within each country's political factions know what is up. I don't see any real threat here until more develops. They probably will still attack the PKK bases more but they've been doing that since like 2004.



No problem right CD, Nancy girl is your type of gal.


She's no Katherine Harris

And by that I mean she doesn't possess huge shapely juicy double D breasts

[LaMarcus Bryant]

.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao Sanchez blames others too, therefore Bush is blameless.
No. I left out the word 'alone'. I corrected it.

President Bush was not singled out, but is the head of the executive branch. Sanchez never quantified a level of blame on our president, but we all know he is far from perfect!

Did you read the transcript by chance?

[Wild Cobra]

Bush is ultimately responsible for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq.

Absolutely wrong. He is not God and has no control over the traitorous voices in congress that embolden the enemy to keep killing our souldiers! The media is gulity of supporting the enemy in such ways too.

The only he could be responsible for everything would be if he was the sole dictorial presence of this nation.

[xrayzebra]

I said she was stupid, dummy. Not my fault you can't read.

Bush is ultimately responsible for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq.

That's where the buck stops.

So Bush supports the "Resolution"? I don't think so.
You have a funny way of twisting to: it's Bush fault.

[clambake]

Now Putin is endorsing Iran's nukuler program.

Bush is the biggest foreign relations fuckup to ever live.

[ChumpDumper]

Absolutely wrong. He is not God and has no control over the traitorous voices in congress that embolden the enemy to keep killing our souldiers! The media is gulity of supporting the enemy in such ways too.

The only he could be responsible for everything would be if he was the sole dictorial presence of this nation.Eh, he's close enough to that now in case you hadn't noticed.

He gave the order to invade. He is commander in chief. He is responsible.

Why are the people who claim they are proponents of personal responsibility so afraid of assigning it to their leaders?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Eh, he's close enough to that now in case you hadn't noticed.

He gave the order to invade. He is commander in chief. He is responsible.

Why are the people who claim they are proponents of personal responsibility so afraid of assigning it to their leaders?

actually, it's jimmy carter's fault.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey Chump....

Did you read the transcript?

I know thats a hard question for you. A simple YES or NO will suffice.

[ChumpDumper]

You are such a drama queef starting another thread.

I read it long ago.

Hasn't changed my opinion one bit.

[Nbadan]

BY NEGLECT AND INCOMPETENCE AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LEVEL, THAT IS THE PATH OUR POLITICAL LEADERS CHOSE AND NOW AMERICA, MORE PRECISELY THE AMERICAN MILITARY, FINDS ITSELF IN AN INTRACTABLE SITUATION. CLEARLY, MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AMERICAN MILITARY IN ITS APPLICATION OF POWER BUT EVEN ITS GREATEST FAILURES IN THIS WAR CAN BE LINKED TO AMERICA'S LACK OF COMMITMENT, PRIORITY AND MORAL COURAGE IN THIS WAR EFFORT. WITHOUT THE SACRIFICES OF OUR MAGNIFICENT YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM, IRAQ WOULD BE CHAOTIC WELL BEYOND ANYTHING EXPERIENCED TO DATE.

Is Sanchez blaming the American public?

[Nbadan]

AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS IN IRAQ. A PRECIPITOUS WITHDRAWAL WILL UNQUESTIONABLY LEAD TO CHAOS THAT WOULD ENDANGER THE STABILITY OF THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST. IF THIS OCCURS IT WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. COALITION AND AMERICAN FORCE PRESENCE WILL BE REQUIRED AT SOME LEVEL FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY WE MUST MOVE RAPIDLY TO MINIMIZE THAT FORCE PRESENCE AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS MAXIMUM ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR SOVERIEGNTY IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION.

As opposed to the 'organized chaos' going on in Iraq now...or maybe Sanchez has already conveniently forgotten that the U.S. is looking the other way while Kurd rebels are provoking a regional war with Iran and Turkey...

[Wild Cobra]

Is Sanchez blaming the American public?
No.

I see it as him blaming the whole set of people he was addressing. The media, congress, and the executive branch. I see it as the congress for members who embolden the enemy, the media for airing false reports and only the negative 'sensational' aspects, and the executive for not being forceful and bold enough to get the job done.

[ChumpDumper]

I see it as him blaming the whole set of people he was addressing. The media, congress, and the executive branch.Does that include President Bush?

[clambake]

No.

I see it as him blaming the whole set of people he was addressing. The media, congress, and the executive branch. I see it as the congress for members who embolden the enemy, the media for airing false reports and only the negative 'sensational' aspects, and the executive for not being forceful and bold enough to get the job done.

who's to blame for the deteriorating foreign relations that have pushed Putin to support Iran?

[xrayzebra]

who's to blame for the deteriorating foreign relations that have pushed Putin to support Iran?

Has it slipped your mind that Russia was knee deep in
building a nuclear plant for Iran? And we pushed
Putin.....give me a break.

Also, Putin just wants the old days of the cold war back.
He missed those good old times. And now he has oil
money he is going to buy them back....

[Wild Cobra]

Does that include President Bush?
Duh... Absolutely. I never meant otherwise. He doesn't specify any level of gilt however.

I already reminded you that president Bush is the head of the executive branch, didn't I?

[Wild Cobra]

who's to blame for the deteriorating foreign relations that have pushed Putin to support Iran?
I don't know. Haven't tried to keep up with it.

[ChumpDumper]

Duh... Absolutely. I never meant otherwise. He doesn't specify any level of gilt however.:lmao You can't go for two sentences without trying to mitigate.

[Yonivore]

You have to give Congressional Democrats credit, in the most perverse sense of that word.

In their effort to undercut the War in Iraq, they've left no option unexplored.

Tried to cut off military funding. That didn't work.

Proposed "balancing" home and deployment time for troops -- severely limiting the ability of military commanders to put enough troops in the field. Couldn't pass that one, either.

Created arbitrary deadlines for a military withdrawal. Soundly -- and wisely -- rejected.

Smear the U.S. commander in Iraq through an activist group-sponsored ad in The New York Times? Blew up in their faces.

So, it was back to the drawing board, and now they've hit on a strategy that, at first blush, appears to have almost gotten some traction. Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues in the house passed a resolution, condemning Turkey for the "genocide" of 1.5 million Armenians during World War I (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ss_turkey_10_15.asp).

At first, the measure seemed a little odd. The event occurred almost 95 years ago. Relations between Ankara and Yerevan are still rocky, but both sides have expressed a willingness to continue their dialogue, and establish relations without any preconditions. And, from our perspective, Turkey has become an important U.S. ally (and NATO partner) over the past 60 years. Our bases in Turkey provide important logistical support for the War in Iraq.

Which, of course, is why the Democrats passed the resolution in the first place. In the guise of "human rights," the Dems sponsored a resolution guaranteed to upset Ankara, and (potentially) jeopardize the flow of personnel, equipment and fuel into Iraq. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained:


70 percent of the U.S. air cargo to Iraq flies through Turkey. He said 70 percent of the fuel requirements of the U.S. military in Iraq also moves through neighboring Turkey.

Officials said Turkey also serves as the route for new U.S. armored vehicles to Iraq. They cited the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, or MRAP, vehicles, designed to withstand improvised explosive devices.

"For those who are concerned that we get as many of these Mine Resistant Ambush Protected heavy vehicles into Iraq as possible, 95 percent of those vehicles today are being flown into Iraq through Turkey," Gates said on Oct. 12.
And naturally, that means nothing to Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer, and the rest of the House Democratic leadership. The only issue that counts is gaining the upper hand on Iraq, and forcing some sort of withdrawal. If that means jeopardizing relations with Turkey, so be it.

It's a "strategy" that is absolutely feckless and completely beneath contempt. But the Democrats are willing to try anything in their efforts to undermine the war, even if endangers American troops in Iraq, or inflames NATO's critical southern flank. In their calculus, domestic politics trumps everything, including the war effort and critical diplomatic ties.

The U.S. does not brook genocide. But passing a resolution 95 years after the fact -- and with obvious ulterior motives -- does nothing to honor the victims. In fact, it actually cheapens a supposed show of support, making the genocide measure little more than a political stunt, aimed at ending a war that Democrats once supported -- but now oppose.

Such is the state of today's Democratic Party.

Did I mention that, thanks to the Democrats' resolution, Turkey is now considering an invasion of northern Iraq, a move that would destablizie the most secure (and prosperous) region of the country? Trying to stop the war in Iraq, they could easily trigger a new conflict, while re-igniting religious and ethnic hatreds that date back thousands of years. Alert the Norwegian Nobel Committee. At this pace, House Democrats will be serious contenders for next year's Peace Prize.

Move over Yassar Arafat and Al Gore, you have company coming.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You have to give Congressional Democrats credit, in the most perverse sense of that word.

In their effort to undercut the War in Iraq, they've left no option unexplored.

Tried to cut off military funding. That didn't work.

Proposed "balancing" home and deployment time for troops -- severely limiting the ability of military commanders to put enough troops in the field. Couldn't pass that one, either.

Created arbitrary deadlines for a military withdrawal. Soundly -- and wisely -- rejected.

Smear the U.S. commander in Iraq through an activist group-sponsored ad in The New York Times? Blew up in their faces.

So, it was back to the drawing board, and now they've hit on a strategy that, at first blush, appears to have almost gotten some traction. Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues in the house passed a resolution, condemning Turkey for the "genocide" of 1.5 million Armenians during World War I (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ss_turkey_10_15.asp).

At first, the measure seemed a little odd. The event occurred almost 95 years ago. Relations between Ankara and Yerevan are still rocky, but both sides have expressed a willingness to continue their dialogue, and establish relations without any preconditions. And, from our perspective, Turkey has become an important U.S. ally (and NATO partner) over the past 60 years. Our bases in Turkey provide important logistical support for the War in Iraq.

Which, of course, is why the Democrats passed the resolution in the first place. In the guise of "human rights," the Dems sponsored a resolution guaranteed to upset Ankara, and (potentially) jeopardize the flow of personnel, equipment and fuel into Iraq. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained:


And naturally, that means nothing to Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer, and the rest of the House Democratic leadership. The only issue that counts is gaining the upper hand on Iraq, and forcing some sort of withdrawal. If that means jeopardizing relations with Turkey, so be it.

It's a "strategy" that is absolutely feckless and completely beneath contempt. But the Democrats are willing to try anything in their efforts to undermine the war, even if endangers American troops in Iraq, or inflames NATO's critical southern flank. In their calculus, domestic politics trumps everything, including the war effort and critical diplomatic ties.

The U.S. does not brook genocide. But passing a resolution 95 years after the fact -- and with obvious ulterior motives -- does nothing to honor the victims. In fact, it actually cheapens a supposed show of support, making the genocide measure little more than a political stunt, aimed at ending a war that Democrats once supported -- but now oppose.

Such is the state of today's Democratic Party.

Did I mention that, thanks to the Democrats' resolution, Turkey is now considering an invasion of northern Iraq, a move that would destablizie the most secure (and prosperous) region of the country? Trying to stop the war in Iraq, they could easily trigger a new conflict, while re-igniting religious and ethnic hatreds that date back thousands of years. Alert the Norwegian Nobel Committee. At this pace, House Democrats will be serious contenders for next year's Peace Prize.

Move over Yassar Arafat and Al Gore, you have company coming.


got it dems are bad. :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

got it dems are bad. :rolleyes
I see you're unable to explain it in any other terms...so, yeah, in this case -- Dems are bad. Saboteurs, if you will. Saboteurs willing to sacrifice American lives in Iraq to achieve a political end.

What other reason to choose now to try and pass this particular resolution?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

You have to give Congressional Democrats credit, in the most perverse sense of that word.

In their effort to undercut the War in Iraq, they've left no option unexplored.

Tried to cut off military funding. That didn't work.

Proposed "balancing" home and deployment time for troops -- severely limiting the ability of military commanders to put enough troops in the field. Couldn't pass that one, either.

Created arbitrary deadlines for a military withdrawal. Soundly -- and wisely -- rejected.

Smear the U.S. commander in Iraq through an activist group-sponsored ad in The New York Times? Blew up in their faces.

So, it was back to the drawing board, and now they've hit on a strategy that, at first blush, appears to have almost gotten some traction. Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues in the house passed a resolution, condemning Turkey for the "genocide" of 1.5 million Armenians during World War I (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ss_turkey_10_15.asp).

At first, the measure seemed a little odd. The event occurred almost 95 years ago. Relations between Ankara and Yerevan are still rocky, but both sides have expressed a willingness to continue their dialogue, and establish relations without any preconditions. And, from our perspective, Turkey has become an important U.S. ally (and NATO partner) over the past 60 years. Our bases in Turkey provide important logistical support for the War in Iraq.

Which, of course, is why the Democrats passed the resolution in the first place. In the guise of "human rights," the Dems sponsored a resolution guaranteed to upset Ankara, and (potentially) jeopardize the flow of personnel, equipment and fuel into Iraq. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained:


And naturally, that means nothing to Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer, and the rest of the House Democratic leadership. The only issue that counts is gaining the upper hand on Iraq, and forcing some sort of withdrawal. If that means jeopardizing relations with Turkey, so be it.

It's a "strategy" that is absolutely feckless and completely beneath contempt. But the Democrats are willing to try anything in their efforts to undermine the war, even if endangers American troops in Iraq, or inflames NATO's critical southern flank. In their calculus, domestic politics trumps everything, including the war effort and critical diplomatic ties.

The U.S. does not brook genocide. But passing a resolution 95 years after the fact -- and with obvious ulterior motives -- does nothing to honor the victims. In fact, it actually cheapens a supposed show of support, making the genocide measure little more than a political stunt, aimed at ending a war that Democrats once supported -- but now oppose.

Such is the state of today's Democratic Party.

Did I mention that, thanks to the Democrats' resolution, Turkey is now considering an invasion of northern Iraq, a move that would destablizie the most secure (and prosperous) region of the country? Trying to stop the war in Iraq, they could easily trigger a new conflict, while re-igniting religious and ethnic hatreds that date back thousands of years. Alert the Norwegian Nobel Committee. At this pace, House Democrats will be serious contenders for next year's Peace Prize.


Move over Yassar Arafat and Al Gore, you have company coming.
you think blackwater was there doing as well?

[Yonivore]

you think blackwater was there doing as well?
No, I think the Democrats' allies in Iraq were responsible for setting up Blackwater.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I see you're unable to explain it in any other terms...so, yeah, in this case -- Dems are bad. IN YOUR OPINION Saboteurs, if you will. IN YOUR OPINION Saboteurs willing to sacrifice American lives in Iraq to achieve a political end.

What other reason to choose now to try and pass this particular resolution?



I fixed your post for you.

So in your opinion:

the dems who passed legislation that gave the military a bigger raise the bush wanted don't support them?

the dems who have tried to get the president to bring the troops hoime actually want them to die

the dems who have tried to force Bush to limit tours actually want them to die

the dems who have passeds this turkey resolution (for which i think is stupid) actually are trying to get the Turks to invade northern Iraq. This action will then cut off supply routes which will lead to dead GIs? And in your opinion they are hoping that lots of GIs do die?


:rolleyes dude your nuts.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, I think the Democrats' allies in Iraq were responsible for setting up Blackwater.


or maybe they opended fire and killed alot of innocent people? Isn't the Iraqi govt looking into blackwater? Oh wait that's the dems fault also...

[Yonivore]

or maybe they opended fire and killed alot of innocent people? Isn't the Iraqi govt looking into blackwater? Oh wait that's the dems fault also...
Maybe they did. But, Blackwater hasn't been known for overreacting. Could be that it was an inexperienced crew that panicked. Who knows...

I don't oppose an investigation into the incident.

But, back to the topic at hand. What exactly was Pelosi doing when she introduced the "Armenian Genocide" resolution?

What prompted her to act at this particular point in history?

[ChumpDumper]

No, I think the Democrats' allies in Iraq were responsible for setting up Blackwater.:lmao :lmao :lmao

That is hilarious. The left wing conspiracy is indeed vast.

Blackwater's incompetence got marines killed needlessly in Fallujah to fulfill some cowboy fantasy Bush had about "getting tough." It is a simple matter to believe their incompetence could led to the deaths of innocent Iraqis as well.

[George Gervin's Afro]

President Bush on Wednesday opposed Turkey's possible military offensive against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq.

"We are making it very clear to Turkey that we don't think it is in their interest to send troops into Iraq," Bush said at a White House news conference.


The president also urged the Democratic-controlled Congress not to infuriate Turkey, a key ally in the war on Iraq, by approving a resolution labeling as genocide the World War I-era killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians in the final years of the Ottoman Empire.


didn't dummy rumsfeld 'inuriate' our oldest european allies prior to the war? i believe dick also chastised our allies who wouldn't support the liberation experiment? so i guess bush was ok before the war calling out allies but now he doesn't want to infuriate them?

[Yonivore]

didn't dummy rumsfeld 'inuriate' our oldest european allies prior to the war? i believe dick also chastised our allies who wouldn't support the liberation experiment? so i guess bush was ok before the war calling out allies but now he doesn't want to infuriate them?
Nice dodge.

What do you believe is Pelosi's motivation for bringing this resolution now?

[clambake]

Did I mention that, thanks to the Democrats' resolution, Turkey is now considering an invasion of northern Iraq,

I can only guess that you've been away due to some kind of mental issue.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree this genocide resolution is stupid. Have we passed a resolution about the native American ethnic cleansing we committed?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

That is hilarious. The left wing conspiracy is indeed vast.

Blackwater's incompetence got marines killed needlessly in Fallujah to fulfill some cowboy fantasy Bush had about "getting tough." It is a simple matter to believe their incompetence could led to the deaths of innocent Iraqis as well.i don't think he meant "Democratic allies" to be our Democrats per se. i think he means everyone over there that see how our politicians are trying to manipulate the war. the ones that are lending a "helping hand"

[ChumpDumper]

i don't think he meant "Democratic allies" to be our Democrats per se. i think he means everyone over there that see how our politicians are trying to manipulate the war. the ones that are lending a "helping hand"I think his denial about Iraq has led to paranoia.

[xrayzebra]

I agree this genocide resolution is stupid. Have we passed a resolution about the native American ethnic cleansing we committed?


I don't know. Did you kill all those "native American's".
I didn't.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know. Did you kill all those "native American's".
I didn't.Nope, just like present-day Turks didn't kill the Armenians.

[clambake]

maybe we could satisfy them with casinos

[Yonivore]

It's not just that the resolution is stupid but that it has a seditious intent.

[ChumpDumper]

Then charge them with sedition or shut up. I've had enough of neocons whining about traitors and sedition. If they actually are doing so, it will be easy enough to arrest and torture them.

[Yonivore]

What a shame:

Murtha: Armenian Genocide Vote to Fail (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SB5ID00&show_article=1)

But, perhaps the damage is already done:


Turkish MPs back attacks in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7049348.stm)

[clambake]

:lol yoni thinks turkey's going to attack because of a resolution.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

:lol yoni thinks turkey's going to attack because of a resolution.they have 60,000 troops just waiting for the OK. what are you trying to get at?

[clambake]

they have 60,000 troops just waiting for the OK. what are you trying to get at?
they already have troops in Iraq.

this has been on the burner for a long time.

nothing to do with a supposed resolution.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree with that. The resolution wouldn't help at all, but even if it never existed the Turks would still be massing at the border. The Kurds are unable or unwilling to keep their people from fucking with Turkey. That is the real problem.

[clambake]

I agree with that. The resolution wouldn't help at all, but even if it never existed the Turks would still be massing at the border. The Kurds are unable or unwilling to keep their people from fucking with Turkey. That is the real problem.
Look, it's just irresponsible for neocons to suggest that Turkey makes this move because of some bullshit resolution. They refuse to acknowledge who's responsible. Anything to protect their savior.

[ChumpDumper]

Look, it's just irresponsible for neocons to suggest that Turkey makes this move because of some bullshit resolution.Say it's seditious. It's sexier.

[ChumpDumper]

Besides, this is just another byproduct of Bush's failure to send enough troops into Iraq in the first place. His incompetence is seditious.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

they already have troops in Iraq.

this has been on the burner for a long time.

nothing to do with a supposed resolution.this "supposed resolution" you're refering to is this armenian thing, right?

[clambake]

Besides, this is just another byproduct of Bush's failure to send enough troops into Iraq in the first place. His incompetence is seditious.
:lol :clap

[clambake]

right. nothing to do with turk moves

[Viva Las Espuelas]

right. nothing to do with turk movesso this breaking news of 60,000 troops getting the ok to attack and the armenian genocide vote are completely non-coincidential?

[clambake]

so this breaking news of 60,000 troops getting the ok to attack and the armenian genocide vote are completely non-coincidential?
this is not breaking news. they're are tired of their troops being killed, and they aren't being killed due to some "supposed" resolution. yoni is the only fool trying marry this action.

[velik_m]

I agree with that. The resolution wouldn't help at all, but even if it never existed the Turks would still be massing at the border. The Kurds are unable or unwilling to keep their people from fucking with Turkey. That is the real problem.

More like Turkey is unable or unwilling to stop fucking with Kurds.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

this is not breaking news. they're are tired of their troops being killed, and they aren't being killed due to some "supposed" resolution. yoni is the only fool trying marry this action.you didn't answer the question, chump. are these events non-related, non-coincidential? yes or no. no essay. it's just hard for me to believe that they "non-coincidentially" ok'd to move on the Kurds right after this armenian vote passed. why have they decided all of the sudden to move at this point when we had always advised them that killing the Kurds wouldn't be a good move?

[Yonivore]

More like Turkey is unable or unwilling to stop fucking with Kurds.
15 Turkish soldiers were recently killed, in Turkey, by some militant Kurdish force that has been crossing the border to wreak havoc. It's not the Turks that are doing the fucking with.

We and Iraq have assured Turkey that we will deal with the problem and have asked them to stay their hand. Pelosi's resolution works (intentionally, I hasten to add) to undermine this tenuous agreement.

[clambake]

you didn't answer the question, chump. are these events non-related, non-coincidential? yes or no. no essay. it's just hard for me to believe that they "non-coincidentially" ok'd to move on the Kurds right after this armenian vote passed. why have they decided all of the sudden to move at this point when we had always advised them that killing the Kurds wouldn't be a good move?
i did answer. you're free to believe what you want. the turks are going to move, one way or another in N.Iraq. the resolution, whether it passes or is revoked, has nothing to do with turk soldiers constantly under fire.

[clambake]

15 Turkish soldiers were recently killed, in Turkey, by some militant Kurdish force that has been crossing the border to wreak havoc. It's not the Turks that are doing the fucking with.

We and Iraq have assured Turkey that we will deal with the problem and have asked them to stay their hand. Pelosi's resolution works (intentionally, I hasten to add) to undermine this tenuous agreement.
you have completely freaked out

[George Gervin's Afro]

Nice dodge.

What do you believe is Pelosi's motivation for bringing this resolution now?


I don't pretend to know people motives but republicans seem to understand everyone's they don't agree with.


so i noticed you dodged my question. why was it ok for dick and dummy to 'infuriate' our traditional allies when they did not blindly follow them into the Iraq war? you seem to be outraged that an ally has been wronged yet you were probably in sync with criticizing those in the run up to the unecessary war. so if i understand your point you were ok with demeaning and disrespecting our allies in the run up to the war but you are now against demaning our current allies? you were for it before you were against it?

[Yonivore]

I don't pretend to know people motives but republicans seem to understand everyone's they don't agree with.
That's a joke. You pretend to know President Bush's motives all the time.

Why did Pelosi bring up a resolution, now, condemning Turkey for the genocide of Armenians almost 100 years ago?

C'mon, surely you have an opinion on the matter.

[Oh, Gee!!]

That's a joke. You pretend to know President Bush's motives all the time.

Why did Pelosi bring up a resolution, now, condemning Turkey for the genocide of Armenians almost 100 years ago?

C'mon, surely you have an opinion on the matter.


because there's an Armenian lobby that pushed for it?

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's a joke. You pretend to know President Bush's motives all the time.

Why did Pelosi bring up a resolution, now, condemning Turkey for the genocide of Armenians almost 100 years ago?

C'mon, surely you have an opinion on the matter.


so i noticed you dodged my question. why was it ok for dick and dummy to 'infuriate' our traditional allies when they did not blindly follow them into the Iraq war? you seem to be outraged that an ally has been wronged yet you were probably in sync with criticizing those in the run up to the unecessary war. so if i understand your point you were ok with demeaning and disrespecting our allies in the run up to the war but you are now against demaning our current allies? you were for it before you were against it?



I don't pretend to know why bush wanted at iraq so badly. i took at him at his word which apparently was my first mistake.

[Yonivore]

because there's an Armenian lobby that pushed for it?
If so, they've probably been pushing for it for 95 years. What changed?

[Yonivore]

so i noticed you dodged my question. why was it ok for dick and dummy to 'infuriate' our traditional allies when they did not blindly follow them into the Iraq war?
I didn't dodge your question, it wasn't relevant to the thread. If you want to relive that history, start another thread.


you seem to be outraged that an ally has been wronged yet you were probably in sync with criticizing those in the run up to the unecessary war. so if i understand your point you were ok with demeaning and disrespecting our allies in the run up to the war but you are now against demaning our current allies? you were for it before you were against it?
Actually, I'm outraged that a U.S. Congress would attempt to sabotage our military efforts in Iraq -- and put our soldiers at risk -- by pissing off an ally, simply to make domestic political points. You can't make the same corollation with Secretary Rumsfeld's statements.


I don't pretend to know why bush wanted at iraq so badly. i took at him at his word which apparently was my first mistake.
Whatever; Iraq is just about won, though. Which, incidentally, is why I believe Pelosi is trying to start another war in Northern Iraq.

[clambake]

If so, they've probably been pushing for it for 95 years. What changed?
are you for or against genocide? lets take this discussion in steps

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Yonivore you are seriously fucked in the head far worse than me if you think Pelosi is just doing this to fuck with the progress in iraq.

And i listen to alex fucking jones..

[ChumpDumper]

Iraq is just about won, though. Which, incidentally, is why I believe Pelosi is trying to start another war in Northern Iraq.:lmao

This gets better and better.

The big players in Iraq are simply waiting us out. They know we are going to leave quite soon in the grand scheme of things. Then the great religious/ethnic reckoning will take place and we will be unwilling and unable to do anything about it. Anyone who thinks Iraq will be a free federal democracy in a decade is seditiously stupid.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

LOL I caught that too and was like "WTF?!....how.....seditious...

[mookie2001]

MLKs dream was for Iraqis too

[Yonivore]

Yonivore you are seriously fucked in the head far worse than me if you think Pelosi is just doing this to fuck with the progress in iraq.

And i listen to alex fucking jones..
So, why is she doing it then?

[Wild Cobra]

So, why is she doing it then?
Yes Faded, why is she doing it? What other explaination is there?

[Yonivore]

:::bump:::

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yonivore you are seriously fucked in the head far worse than me if you think Pelosi is just doing this to fuck with the progress in iraq.

And i listen to alex fucking jones..


no he believes it. you have to understand that yoni and his ilk seem to think that everyone is out to get them and their party. they are paranoid and overly sensitive.. plus they hate being in the minority even though it is better for the country when they are..

[Yonivore]

no he believes it. you have to understand that yoni and his ilk seem to think that everyone is out to get them and their party. they are paranoid and overly sensitive.. plus they hate being in the minority even though it is better for the country when they are..
Once again, you're not forwarding an alterior motive that would have driven Speaker Pelosi to introduce what she most certainly knew would be a resolution that would cause tension in the region.

She's either oblivious to geopolitical nuances or she was attempting to create that tension.

Or, give me an third option.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Once again, you're not forwarding an alterior motive that would have driven Speaker Pelosi to introduce what she most certainly knew would be a resolution that would cause tension in the region.

She's either oblivious to geopolitical nuances or she was attempting to create that tension.

Or, give me an third option.


from what I have heard this resolution has origins in the early 90's so it's possible that this is the first time many thought it could pass.

[Wild Cobra]

from what I have heard this resolution has origins in the early 90's so it's possible that this is the first time many thought it could pass.
So what is the motivation for passing it? Best guesses will suffice.

[Yonivore]

from what I have heard this resolution has origins in the early 90's so it's possible that this is the first time many thought it could pass.
Well, it's already been squashed before it gets to a vote so, that's some pretty poor thinking and, at a pretty insensitive time, no less.

Doesn't speak well of Pelosi's judgement, I'd say.

If it's been languishing since the early 90's, then that only bolsters the argument that Pelosi brought it up to achieve another goal.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So what is the motivation for passing it? Best guesses will suffice.


I don't assign motivations... I have already made that very clear and that is wtih both sides...

before you bring up my bush bashing i criticize his decisions not his motivations on why he made them

[Yonivore]

I don't assign motivations... I have already made that very clear and that is wtih both sides...

before you bring up my bush bashing i criticize his decisions not his motivations on why he made them
So, would you criticize her decision to bring the resolution up for a vote? Do you believe her decision to bring the resolution up for a vote had potentially catastrophic consequences in Northern Iraq?

And, if you do, wouldn't you want to know why the fuck she did it? Are you that incurious?

[Oh, Gee!!]

So what is the motivation for passing it? Best guesses will suffice.

the Armenian voting bloc in S.F. pushed hard for the resolution, so she caved.

[Yonivore]

the Armenian voting bloc in S.F. pushed hard for the resolution, so she caved.
At the expense of the security of our military forces in Northern Iraq.

Good call Pelosi.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, would you criticize her decision to bring the resolution up for a vote? Do you believe her decision to bring the resolution up for a vote had potentially catastrophic consequences in Northern Iraq?

And, if you do, wouldn't you want to know why the fuck she did it? Are you that incurious?


So are you telling me that the only reason Turkey is ammassing for a mini invasion is because of Pelosi's resolution? Then you want me to believe that the Turks aren't bright enough to know that this resolution, if passed, is meaningless. So no I don't think it is going to have catastrophic consequences rather Turkey's incursion would. Who care why she did it Yoni? You seem to be the only one who cares.. Let's assume it is a ploitical stunt. Can we agree that the GOP Congress in recent memeory has passed meaningless resolutons that were pure political theatre?

[George Gervin's Afro]

At the expense of the security of our military forces in Northern Iraq.

Good call Pelosi.


Some people call that representing your District.. the people you are accountable to and are responsible for your being in Congress in the first place.

[Wild Cobra]

I just got off the phone with the office of my representative Earl Blumenaurers. I also called Peter DeFazio's office. Both offices told me the representatives were reevaluation their position of co-sponsoring the bill. I tried calling Nancy Pelosi's office too, but apparently the phones have been busy. Or at least that's what they say...

They couldn't tell me much. I pointed out things like the timeline and supply lines and my disappointment with them as a veteran.

DC Operator: (202) 224-3121

H. RES. 106 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:hr106ih.txt.pdf) in PDF format

H Res 106 query box (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00106:)

Supposable, I'll get an email explaining the issue.

[Yonivore]

So are you telling me that the only reason Turkey is ammassing for a mini invasion is because of Pelosi's resolution?
No. But, a large part of the reason they haven't already invaded the Kurdish North is because of our alliance. If the U. S. Congress starts condeming them for stuff that happened 95 years ago, it's gonna piss some people off. I do believe the recent Turkish action to give the green light to an invasion is the result of the Pelosi's introduction of the Armenian resolution. The Turkish vote happened after the Pelosi resolution was raised.


kThen you want me to believe that the Turks aren't bright enough to know that this resolution, if passed, is meaningless.
It's never meaningless when the United States of America condemns a military ally during a war.


So no I don't think it is going to have catastrophic consequences rather Turkey's incursion would.
So, you don't think Turkey responding to the introduction of the Armenian Genocide resolution by passing a resolution of their own, that gives a green light to the Turkish military to invade Northern Iraq, is a possibly catastrophic development in our position in Iraq?

Okay.


Who care why she did it Yoni? You seem to be the only one who cares..
Well, if I were, we wouldn't be discussing it now, would we?


Let's assume it is a ploitical stunt. Can we agree that the GOP Congress in recent memeory has meaningless resolutons that are pure political theatre?
I can't think of one that had such a potential for catastrophe and that interfered with our foreign relations at a critical time. No.

But, I'm guessing you think it's fine she sat down with Bashar Assad as well.

[Yonivore]

Of course, then there's this:

U.S. Military Looking at Alternatives in Case Turkey cuts Access (http://pukmedia.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1375&Itemid=1)

Another unintended consequence to Pelosi's idiotic resolution?


Turkey has threatened such action after congressional moves to declare that the killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in World War I was "genocide."

[Yonivore]

Some people call that representing your District.. the people you are accountable to and are responsible for your being in Congress in the first place.
I wonder if there are more Armenian or military families in Pelosi's District.

[ChumpDumper]

By the same token, what was the purpose of Bush's decision to not send enough troops to Iraq to secure the borders with any country including Iran, Syria and Turkey?

How many US troops have died because of that seditious action?

[RandomGuy]

So are you telling me that the only reason Turkey is ammassing for a mini invasion is because of Pelosi's resolution? Then you want me to believe that the Turks aren't bright enough to know that this resolution, if passed, is meaningless. So no I don't think it is going to have catastrophic consequences rather Turkey's incursion would. Who care why she did it Yoni? You seem to be the only one who cares.. Let's assume it is a ploitical stunt. Can we agree that the GOP Congress in recent memeory has passed meaningless resolutons that were pure political theatre?

I would note that the congress in 2000, under the GOP also considered the measure. (source: specialist/law professor interviewed on NPR)

It most recently came up once or twice a decade for the last 30 years.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Once again, you're not forwarding an alterior motive that would have driven Speaker Pelosi to introduce what she most certainly knew would be a resolution that would cause tension in the region.

She's either oblivious to geopolitical nuances or she was attempting to create that tension.

Or, give me an third option.


Okay so let me get this straight:
This was the first time to ever push this sort of thing, and it was all done by the hands of Speaker Pelosi? My bad for thinking there was some form of voting process involved.


I didn't realize that was the case. I stand corrected, everyone else that doesn't vote neocon is totally 100% out to get you! How could I have not noticed this!?


Essentially your argument is that Turkish people are too stupid and barbaric to understand a resolution is being passed in the U.S. for domestic reasons that has no real effect on them as Turkish citizens, nor does it even condemn the ruling party of their state. Which is a viable argument, but again education is the answer...You can't tell me a moderately educated Turk gives a fucking shit about what the U.S. failed to pass. Meanwhile its blatantly obvious the Turkish politicians are just moving their ambassader around to please the Marriott segment of their population, people who are the Turkish equivalent of YOU. Yes its bad timing, but you're a fucking neocon yonivore, you can't tell me you've never just shrugged at somethign thrown at your face and said "Bad timing".



So what is the motivation for passing it? Best guesses will suffice.


How stupid of me, I was thinking American's cared about human rights.
Doh!

You are all poster children for abstination, when did ya'll get so stupid to begin automatically believing anything that gets in the way of the overall neocon motive must automatically be evil and aggressive and wrong and nonsensical.

All this shit is the same old rehashing of the "support our troops" mantra you people used to convince other USA Marriotts to vote neocon in 2004.

[Yonivore]

Charles Krauthammer devotes his weekly column to the subject in "Pelosi's Armenian gambit (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/pelosis_armenian_gambit.html)."

I believe the House resolution an act of unbelievable irresponsibility because of its negative impact on the vital support Turkey provides for our effort in Iraq, and Krauthammer characterizes the House resolution similarly, (so much for me being the only person worried about it). He also takes up the interesting question whether Speaker Pelosi intends the resolution to produce its predictable consequences, a question I also raised. Krauthammer declines to answer, preferring instead to formulate "Krauthammer's Razor" as a tool of analysis:


Is the Armenian resolution her way of unconsciously sabotaging the U.S. war effort, after she had failed to stop it by more direct means? I leave that question to psychiatry. Instead, I fall back on Krauthammer's razor (with apologies to Occam): In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit.
I am afraid that "Krauthammer's Razor" will prove to be an even more useful analytic tool than "Bush Derangement Syndrome (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37125-2003Dec4)" (to which Krauthammer added the "Cheney variant (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/bush_derangement_syndrome_chen.html)" earlier this year), Krauthammer's denomination of the syndrome that accounts for so much political discourse over the past seven years.

Listening to House Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Fox News Sunday this week, I thought that the Democrats must know exactly what they are doing. Brit Hume asked Hoyer why the resolution was being taken up by the House now, when it threatened to do so much damage. Hoyer responded (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301635,00.html):


HOYER: OK, Brit. That's a good question. I've been in the Congress 26 years. I've been for this resolution for 25 years. I've talked to the Turkish ambassadors, Turkish government, Turkish parliamentarians, over a quarter of a century.

Never once in that quarter of a century has anybody in the Turkish government said to me, "OK, this is the right time." In other words, there would be no right time.

But the fact is our government is absolutely convinced a genocide was committed, not by the Erdogan government or the present Turkish people, but almost 100 years ago, 1950, during the course of the...
The exchange continued on the question of timing:


HUME: But why is it a good idea to say it now?

HOYER: Because if we forget what has happened, if we paper over what has happened, then we are at risk of letting it happen again. As a matter of fact, unfortunately, in Darfur...

HUME: I mean, do you think it's an urgent issue, something that happened between Turks and Armenians in World War I?

HOYER: Brit, do I think it's an urgent issue? I think the issue of genocide is a very urgent and present issue. It's happening in Darfur now. It happened in Bosnia not too long ago. And the world sat by and watched.

Yes, I think it's an urgent issue.

HUME: Well, but nobody's arguing that it wasn't a mass killing or even a massacre.

HOYER: No, it was a genocide. And I understand some people are arguing that well, let historians look at it. Historians have looked at it. Nobel writers have looked at it. And there is a conclusion that, in fact, this was a conscious effort to eliminate a race of people.

HUME: And I don't think anybody in the administration would dispute that that happened.

However, do you think it's worth making this expression of this at this time, all these years later, at the expense of souring relations with a country who has helped us, is vital in the Mideast and in Iraq in particular?

HOYER: Well, I think Turkey's help to us is vital. More vital is the United States' help to Turkey, Brit.

Over the last half a century, the relationship between the United States and Turkey has far more advantage to Turkey than it has the United States. Are we both advantageous to one another? We are.

Speaker Pelosi and I met with the Turkish ambassador just a few days ago and said to him, "We are friends. We are allies. We believe this is a historical observation. It is not about your government. It's not about the Turkish people. It is about a historical event that happened that we need to remember to preclude its happening again."
In other words, Hoyer was unable to provide an answer to the question of timing; he simply changed the subject.

Krauthammer and the utility of Krauthammer's Razor to the contrary notwithstanding, I doubt that stupidity is a sufficient explanation in this case.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Charles Krauthammer devotes his weekly column to the subject in "Pelosi's Armenian gambit (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/pelosis_armenian_gambit.html)."

I believe the House resolution an act of unbelievable irresponsibility because of its negative impact on the vital support Turkey provides for our effort in Iraq, and Krauthammer characterizes the House resolution similarly, (so much for me being the only person worried about it). He also takes up the interesting question whether Speaker Pelosi intends the resolution to produce its predictable consequences, a question I also raised. Krauthammer declines to answer, preferring instead to formulate "Krauthammer's Razor" as a tool of analysis:


I am afraid that "Krauthammer's Razor" will prove to be an even more useful analytic tool than "Bush Derangement Syndrome (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37125-2003Dec4)" (to which Krauthammer added the "Cheney variant (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/bush_derangement_syndrome_chen.html)" earlier this year), Krauthammer's denomination of the syndrome that accounts for so much political discourse over the past seven years.

Listening to House Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Fox News Sunday this week, I thought that the Democrats must know exactly what they are doing. Brit Hume asked Hoyer why the resolution was being taken up by the House now, when it threatened to do so much damage. Hoyer responded (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301635,00.html):


The exchange continued on the question of timing:


In other words, Hoyer was unable to provide an answer to the question of timing; he simply changed the subject.

Krauthammer and the utility of Krauthammer's Razor to the contrary notwithstanding, I doubt that stupidity is a sufficient explanation in this case.


what damage could it cause? You keep repeating that but other than your opinion you have nothing to offer..

[Yonivore]

what damage could it cause? You keep repeating that but other than your opinion you have nothing to offer..
You don't pay attention. I've discussed two possible consequences, both of which Turkey has already threatened.

1) Turkey ignores our pleas to not invade Kurdish North Iraq, and;

(They passed their own resolution giving the military the green light, just this week and in response to Pelosi's resolution)

2) Turkey disallows coalition access to Turkish installations and territory for logistical support and bases of operation in the war in Iraq.

(Also something Turkey threatened as a result of the Pelosi resolution.)

Please try to keep up.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You don't pay attention. I've discussed two possible consequences, both of which Turkey has already threatened.

1) Turkey ignores our pleas to not invade Kurdish North Iraq, and;

(They passed their own resolution giving the military the green light, just this week and in response to Pelosi's resolution)

2) Turkey disallows coalition access to Turkish installations and territory for logistical support and bases of operation in the war in Iraq.

(Also something Turkey threatened as a result of the Pelosi resolution.)

Please try to keep up.


Can you find me a any evidence the the truks passed their resolution because of pelosi's? I guess you think the Turkls are to stupid to realize this is meaningless...

[ChumpDumper]

The Turks passed the resolution because their soldiers were being killed by Kurds operating from Iraq and the US and Kurdistan weren't doing anything about it.

If there is actually any change in Turkey's stance on supply lines, that would likely be a result of the genocide shenanigans.

[Yonivore]

Can you find me a any evidence the the truks passed their resolution because of pelosi's? I guess you think the Turkls are to stupid to realize this is meaningless...

Conflict between Turkey and the US intensifies (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/turk-o17.shtml)


Tensions between Ankara and Washington have also been exacerbated by the resolution passed by the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, which refers to the mass murder of Armenians in 1915 as genocide. This touches on a fundamental pillar of Turkish state policy. In an interview with the newspaper Milliyet, the commander of the Turkish armed forces, General Yasar Büyükanit, warned that “military relations with the US would never be the same” if the resolution were to pass the Senate.

Ankara has even threatened to close the US airbase at Incirlik if the resolution is approved. A large proportion of American supplies for its war against Iraq pass through this base.

Turkish government gives green light for military intervention in northern Iraq (http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/10/turkish_governm.html)


The anti-American tone of this campaign was very evident. Deniz Baykal, the leader of the Kemalist CHP (Republican People’s Party), accused the US of using the PKK to split Turkey. The leader of the fascist MHP (Nationalist Movement Party), Devlet Bahceli, called for a popular referendum over an invasion of northern Iraq.

The passing of a resolution by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives, terming the massacre of Armenians by Turkey 92 years ago as “genocide,” only served to further inflame antagonisms. The resolution is next to be subject to a vote by the full House.

For Turkish nationalists, the massacre of Armenians is a taboo issue. Anyone using the word genocide must reckon on legal persecution resulting in a prison sentence, or even with death threats.

In order to hinder the passing of the resolution, threats were made in Ankara to close the military base at Incirlik, which serves as a vital supply route for the US occupation of Iraq. US President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates all tried to prevent the acceptance of the Armenia resolution, in order to avoid any escalation of tensions with Ankara.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Conflict between Turkey and the US intensifies (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/turk-o17.shtml)



Turkish government gives green light for military intervention in northern Iraq (http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/10/turkish_governm.html)


nice sources. can you provide anyone that I have heard of?

[Yonivore]

nice sources. can you provide anyone that I have heard of?
One source quoted the commander of the Turkish armed forces, General Yasar Büyükanit. Who did you want to hear it from?

I don't know anyone on the Turkish Parliament and I can't find any of your pet MSM sources that will even touch the story.

Here's a story from the Turkish Daily News -- from way back in January -- that predicts what will happen if Pelsosi pushed forward with the resolution:

Turkish Daily News (http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=63589)


What happens if the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi decides to change the “terms of endearment” this year?
***
5 -- 2007 is not an ordinary year in Turkish politics. Therefore, a U.S. “seal of approval” of the Armenian genocide may change the outlook in both the presidential and parliamentary elections. Erdogan's neo-Islamists, for the neo-cons in Washington, are probably still the favored bunch to rule Turkey -- the role model. So, a move from the usual line in April would mean “Washington going against its own policy.” The “g-word” would also mean unnecessary turmoil in Turkey that could hardly go in line with U.S. interests in this part of the world. A lot of trouble for no real gain…

7 -- Ankara and Washington are already differ fundamentally on the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)/Iraqi Kurdish Entity. The “allies” have diverging, not converging, interests as regards to the country Erdoğan says is even more important for Turkey than the European Union -- Iraq. The bureaucracy that keeps a pair of retired U.S. and Turkish generals busy under the guise of “special envoys to coordinate the fight against terrorism (PKK)” has in recent months proved to be “special envoys to delude the Turkish public that the Americans really intend to fight the PKK.” If a U.S. “seal of approval” on the Armenian genocide adds to the Turkish perceptions of U.S. reluctance to fight the PKK, there would probably be a combined effect at a (negative) synergy size.
***

They listed 8 possible consequences. Go read them all.

By the way, were you aware Turkey recalled its ambassador to the U.S. when the House subcommittee passed the resolution?

[George Gervin's Afro]

One source quoted the commander of the Turkish armed forces, General Yasar Büyükanit. Who did you want to hear it from?

I don't know anyone on the Turkish Parliament and I can't find any of your pet MSM sources that will even touch the story.

Here's a story from the Turkish Daily News -- from way back in January -- that predicts what will happen if Pelsosi pushed forward with the resolution:

Turkish Daily News (http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=63589)


They listed 8 possible consequences. Go read them all.

By the way, were you aware Turkey recalled its ambassador to the U.S. when the House subcommittee passed the resolution?




Pelosi Makes Political Misstep in Reversal on Armenian Genocide

By Laura Litvan and Nicholas Johnston

Oct. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The two meetings House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attended before a vote on a resolution labeling the massacre of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey a genocide foreshadowed the biggest political misstep of her speakership.

In the hours before a House panel approved the resolution Oct. 10, Pelosi was told in a tense meeting with Turkey's ambassador that the vote would endanger his country's alliance with the U.S. She had a warmer session with an Armenian cleric and representatives of Armenian-Americans, who have a large presence in her home state of California. In both, she made clear she intended to bring the resolution to a full House vote.

Since then, Pelosi, 67, has been in retreat. Her vow to bring the measure to a vote outraged Turkey, which recalled its ambassador and threatened to cut off the use of its military bases to resupply U.S. troops in Iraq. On Oct. 17, Pelosi said it ``remains to be seen'' whether the vote would occur after more than a dozen lawmakers pulled their names from the measure and some Democrats asked her to drop it.

``It's a good resolution but a horrible time to be considering it on the House floor,'' said Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas, one of the Democrats who withdrew his support.

``She dug in her heels to find that she didn't have her members with her,'' said Representative Ray LaHood, an Illinois Republican. ``If you get too far out in front of them, it can be embarrassing.''

Democrats' Agenda

The turnaround is the first major failure for Pelosi, who has successfully muscled through the agenda she set out when she became leader of the Democratic majority in January. This year, the House has passed a measure calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, a minimum-wage increase, a five-year farm bill and a $35 billion expansion of health coverage for children.

Until now, her biggest obstacles had been President George W. Bush's veto power -- which he used this month to block the children's health-care measure -- and the inability of Senate Democratic leaders to overcome Republican opposition.

The controversy also handed Bush and House Republicans an opening to attack Pelosi's foreign-policy credentials. ``Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that's providing vital support for our military every day,'' Bush said Oct. 17.

Some Democrats say Pelosi couldn't have anticipated the backlash. Yet Representative Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, one of her closest allies, said he had warned her in February that the resolution could erode U.S. support in the Middle East. ``This is not a way to help us in an area where we need allies,'' Murtha said.

Moral Obligation

Pelosi said Oct. 11 that she decided to advance the legislation because the U.S. has a moral obligation to take a stand and declare the World War I-era killings of 1.5 million Armenians genocide.

``There's never a good time,'' Pelosi said, adding that the entire Democratic leadership team, and a bipartisan coalition comprising most of the House's 435 members, supported it.

The reaction was swift. One day after the House Foreign Affairs Committee approved the resolution, 27-21, Turkey withdrew its ambassador for consultations, and Turkish legislators on Oct. 17 authorized the use of military force against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, a step that may further destabilize Iraq and disrupt oil supplies.

Pelosi said Turkey may be using the resolution to justify taking action in Iraq. ``This is about Turkey's plans,'' she said. ``This isn't about our resolution.''

`Home-State Politics'

The legislation, which has been introduced for decades, often originates from California lawmakers, said John Pitney, a political science professor with Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California. About 232,000 Armenian Americans live in the state, 54 percent of the U.S. total, according to 2006 Census data. ``Home-state politics is a large portion of it,'' Pitney said.

This year's resolution was co-sponsored by California Democrat Adam Schiff and Pelosi has said she promised him and other supporters that they would get a vote if the measure was approved by committee.

When it was approved in committee last week, the resolution had 226 co-sponsors, more that the 218 needed to pass. But by yesterday, more than 12 co-sponsors had withdrawn their support.

This week, Pelosi backed away from her pledge to advance the bill this year, saying it would be up to its sponsors to decide whether it comes up for a vote. Schiff said he would ask her to bring the measure to the floor only if he has enough votes to win.

Murtha said he is working to persuade Pelosi to drop the matter, and that as many as 60 Democrats would oppose the resolution and it would fail any vote of the full House.

``It's impractical at this point to go forward with it,'' Murtha said.

The dispute has cost Pelosi some credibility, Pitney said. ``This is proving to be a lesson to the leadership to think through the long-term consequences,'' he said. ``There's a great deal of difference between taking positions in the minority and moving legislation in the majority.''


here's one.. Yoni was right! Wow i think that may be the first time!

[Yonivore]

here's one.. Yoni was right! Wow i think that may be the first time!
I applaud your honesty.

[Wild Cobra]

How stupid of me, I was thinking American's cared about human rights.
Doh!

Sure we do. Tell me this please. How does condemning the current nation of Turkey that was established in 1923 do anything but harm our relations with them when the autrocities were commited during the decade beforehand?

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Sure we do. Tell me this please. How does condemning the current nation of Turkey that was established in 1923 do anything but harm our relations with them when the autrocities were commited during the decade beforehand?


It doesn't condemn the current nation of Turkey that is the whole point. Jesus christ you're stupid. And the other things it does have already been said and said again in this thread. For the record I think doing all this now is wrong, but there is a slight meaning behind it you keep ignoring, as if it does not exist.

But beyond all this I still don't think Turkey will be pushed to denying us logistical support in the war. Unless something else happens.

[Wild Cobra]

It doesn't condemn the current nation of Turkey that is the whole point.

Sure it does. Not in our eyes, but in their eyes it does. Different cultures think differently.


But beyond all this I still don't think Turkey will be pushed to denying us logistical support in the war. Unless something else happens.

You ready to hold all those sponsoring the resolution responsible if it does?

[clambake]

You ready to hold all those sponsoring the resolution responsible if it does?
you'd think conservatives would leader the march against genocide.

my how times have changed. I guess there's good genocide and bad genocide.

[Wild Cobra]

you'd think conservatives would leader the march against genocide.

my how times have changed. I guess there's good genocide and bad genocide.
Did you miss the part where this genocide was before the current form of Turkey? The genocide was before 1923, when Turkey became the nation it is today.

[xrayzebra]

you'd think conservatives would leader the march against genocide.

my how times have changed. I guess there's good genocide and bad genocide.

You mean like your group of Liberals (Clinton administration)
stopped the genocide during their eight years. There is
enough genocide to go around to all politicians.

I have a question: How can anyone condemn something
that didn't happen in their lifetime or apologize for
something that didn't happen in their life time. Maybe
offer regrets for some incident, but apologize? Not
possible. It may have been a terrible thing. But you
nor I have no idea why it happened and only have
some historians view on it. And a damn politician will
say anything to anyone to cotton some favor.
So quit wringing you hands and beating your chest,
you really aren't impressing anyone, especially me.
Besides if anyone was alive when this occurred they
would be well over a hundred years of age. Just
like slavery in the United States and elsewhere. You
and I had nothing to do with it. And no one alive
today suffered the indignity or owned slaves. I have
nothing to apologize for and no one today is owed
an apology or compensation.

[clambake]

Did you miss the part where this genocide was before the current form of Turkey? The genocide was before 1923, when Turkey became the nation it is today.
I really don't care about it one way or the other. Conservatives are the ones defining selective genocide. You don't find that interesting?

[Wild Cobra]

I really don't care about it one way or the other. Conservatives are the ones defining selective genocide. You don't find that interesting?
If you say so. I'll bet you have no good examples.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's a couple articles on the genocide thing and part of the articles:

Pelosi’s Most Dangerous Ploy (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22840)


According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey is the transshipment point for about 70% of all air cargo (including 33% of the fuel) going to supply US forces in Iraq. Included are about 95% of the new “MRAP” -- mine-resistant, ambush-protected -- vehicles designed to save the lives of American troops. Turkey wasn’t always this helpful. In 2003, the Turks refused permission for the 4th Infantry Division to enter Iraq through Turkey.

Turkey’s Erdogan government has indicated that if the House of Representatives takes action on a non-binding resolution being pushed by Speaker Pelosi, Turkey might revoke our ability to use Incirlik as a waypoint for Iraq supplies.


There is a deep-seated cultural sensitivity among the Turkish people and their government on the issue of the Armenian massacre nine decades ago. Amb. Sensoy may have been thinking about the far-reaching effects – including on Turkey’s application for EU membership -- of the House genocide resolution when he told us, “No nation would like to be labeled with that greatest of human rights violations.”

House Republican leaders are very concerned about the effects the Democrats’ resolution could have. House Minority Leader John Boehner told me, “If the Turks cut off our ability to use Incirlik, there’s no question that this could jeopardize our troops on the ground in Iraq. And frankly, if this is just the latest in the Democrats’ string of back-door attempts to force a retreat from the war against al Qaeda, it’s certainly the most dangerous.”

Speaker Pelosi is apparently so intent on forcing an end to American involvement in Iraq that she is willing to interfere in our tenuous friendship with Turkey. When she does, it will be an historic event: the House of Representatives will be responsible for alienating a key ally in time of war and possibly interdicting supplies to US troops.

Sabotage in Wartime (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/sabotage_in_wartime.html)


If Congress has gone nearly a century without passing a resolution accusing the Turks of genocide, why now, in the midst of the Iraq war?

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this resolution is just the latest in a series of Congressional efforts to sabotage the conduct of that war.

Large numbers of American troops and vast amounts of military equipment go to Iraq through Turkey, one of the few nations in the Islamic Middle East that has long been an American ally.

Turkey has also thus far refrained from retaliating against guerrilla attacks from the Kurdish regions of Iraq onto Turkish soil. But the Turks could retaliate big time if they chose.

There are more Turkish troops on the border of Iraq than there are American troops within Iraq.

Turkey has already recalled its ambassador from Washington to show its displeasure over Congress' raising this issue. The Turks may or may not stop at that.

In this touchy situation, why stir up a hornet's nest over something in the past that neither we nor anybody else can do anything about today?


Too many Democrats in Congress have gotten into the habit of treating the Iraq war as President Bush's war -- and therefore fair game for political tactics making it harder for him to conduct that war.

In a rare but revealing slip, Democratic Congressman James Clyburn said that an American victory in Iraq "would be a real big problem for us" in the 2008 elections.

Unwilling to take responsibility for ending the war by cutting off the money to fight it, as many of their supporters want them to, Congressional Democrats have instead tried to sabotage the prospects of victory by seeking to micro-manage the deployment of troops, delaying the passing of appropriations -- and now this genocide resolution that is the latest, and perhaps lowest, of these tactics.

[Walter Craparita]

Too many Democrats in Congress have gotten into the habit of treating the Iraq war as President Bush's war -


Too many Democrats in Congress have gotten into the habit of treating the Iraq war as President Bush's war -


Too many Democrats in Congress have gotten into the habit of treating the Iraq war as President Bush's war -

[boutons_]

"Too many Democrats in Congress have gotten into the habit of treating the Iraq war as President Bush's war"

It is dubya's war.

He lied and bullied for it, he got it, then he botched it murderously.

[clambake]

If you say so. I'll bet you have no good examples.
shelving genocide for selfish purpose is a pretty good example. ignoring history when it benefits an aspect of an already corrupt act is not why the world use to look at america as a pillar of hope. i don't think bush has the courage to salvage what's left of the american dream.

Like I said, I don't really care, I just find it interesting that conservatives are able to pick and choose which genocide is acceptable.

[George Gervin's Afro]

shelving genocide for selfish purpose is a pretty good example. ignoring history when it benefits an aspect of an already corrupt act is not why the world use to look at america as a pillar of hope. i don't think bush has the courage to salvage what's left of the american dream.

Like I said, I don't really care, I just find it interesting that conservatives are able to pick and choose which genocide is acceptable.



the GOP was silent during the 90's concerning genocide.. yet listening to them blaming clinton for not doing anything about it is humorous.. of course all of it to justify the indefensible..

[Yonivore]

the GOP was silent during the 90's concerning genocide.. yet listening to them blaming clinton for not doing anything about it is humorous.. of course all of it to justify the indefensible..
Actually, Republicans supported Clinton's action in Bosnia precisely because of the genocidal aspects of it.

[clambake]

Actually, Republicans supported Clinton's action in Bosnia precisely because of the genocidal aspects of it.
good for them! i think their morals have changed since then. still don't see how ANY resolution regarding ANYTHING could possibly affect the victory you claim in Iraq.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Actually, Republicans supported Clinton's action in Bosnia precisely because of the genocidal aspects of it.




"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)


"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99


"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush


"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)


"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99


"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)


"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)


"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


Today these folks would be genocide lovers.. using the rhetoric we are hearing today..

[xrayzebra]

Well, looks like the stuff is going to hit the fan between the
Kurds and Turkey. The troops are on the move. I can't say I
really blame Turkey. The Kurds might want to take to talk to
a few of their folks. The Turks are a hard headed bunch. And
unless their military has changed, can be pretty barbaric themselves.

[clambake]

Well, looks like the stuff is going to hit the fan between the
Kurds and Turkey. The troops are on the move. I can't say I
really blame Turkey. The Kurds might want to take to talk to
a few of their folks. The Turks are a hard headed bunch. And
unless their military has changed, can be pretty barbaric themselves.
yoni knows who to blame. i guess you 2 don't see eye to eye on this.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, looks like the stuff is going to hit the fan between the
Kurds and Turkey. The troops are on the move. I can't say I
really blame Turkey. The Kurds might want to take to talk to
a few of their folks. The Turks are a hard headed bunch. And
unless their military has changed, can be pretty barbaric themselves.


yoni has been telling us that pelosi is to blame?

[xrayzebra]

yoni knows who to blame. i guess you 2 don't see eye to eye on this.

Whats to see? Condi is doing her dead level best to
avert, what I think it is about happen, and I don't like
to see it happen either. But this is a long festering sore
and I would suspect that there is more to it than meets
the eye. But we will have to wait and see. I, nor you, have
access to intel reports from the area.

I think what some like you wish to happen, wont. It will
be kept isolated and not go out of region. But then
again, that is only a supposition.

[Yonivore]

yoni has been telling us that pelosi is to blame?
This is the type of absolutist micharacterization that precludes you from engaging in a reasonable debate.

I will add, however, that the United States' ability to mediate or broker a compromise was seriously hampered by Pelosi's idiotic move. Just ask Jack Murtha.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Whats to see? Condi is doing her dead level best to
avert, what I think it is about happen, and I don't like
to see it happen either. But this is a long festering sore
and I would suspect that there is more to it than meets
the eye. But we will have to wait and see. I, nor you, have
access to intel reports from the area.

I think what some like you wish to happen, wont. It will
be kept isolated and not go out of region. But then
again, that is only a supposition.


oh i guess there is always hope for condi. too bad she wasn't doing her level best to avert the unecessary war.. oh well we can't have everything..


long festering sore? like the sunnis and shia hating eachother for over 1,000 yrs?

[xrayzebra]

yoni has been telling us that pelosi is to blame?

GGA, two separate things. Nancy right now is more than
likely dancing a jig with the rest of the dimm-o-craps
thinking this will turn things around in Iraq, for the worst.
But like I said I think this will be kept isolated to a
particular area. I also suspect that the main political parties
in Iraq (Kurdish) are well aware of Turkey's intentions
and will not interfere. They have too much to lose. Shall
we say oil. And Turkey does not want to lose their main
source of "Oil".

[George Gervin's Afro]

This is the type of absolutist micharacterization that precludes you from engaging in a reasonable debate.

I will add, however, that the United States' ability to mediate or broker a compromise was seriously hampered by Pelosi's idiotic move. Just ask Jack Murtha.


hey if the talk radio super heroes can get away with this stuff so can I..

[ChumpDumper]

It's not like we didn't know this was going on almost continuously the past four years; there just wasn't anything we could do about it except cross our fingers. Good war strategy.

[Yonivore]

hey if the talk radio super heroes can get away with this stuff so can I..
If that's where you set your bar...so be it.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

ROFL

GGA just cramed Yonivore's AH with a big metaphorical historically accurate dildo

[Yonivore]

ROFL

GGA just cramed Yonivore's AH with a big metaphorical historically accurate dildo
That's what I'm talking about!

[Nbadan]

Turkish troops, weapons head toward Iraq
By VOLKAN SARISAKAL


SIRNAK, Turkey - Dozens of Turkish military vehicles loaded with soldiers and heavy weapons rumbled toward the Iraq border on Monday after an ambush by rebel Kurds that killed 12 soldiers and left eight missing. Turkey's foreign minister said his country will pursue diplomacy before it sends troops across the rugged frontier.


The guerrilla ambush on Sunday outraged an already frustrated public. Demonstrations erupted across the country and opposition leaders called for an immediate strike against rebel bases in Iraq, despite appeals for restraint from Iraq, the U.S. and European leaders.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a telephone conversation on Sunday night that Turkey expected "speedy steps from the U.S." in cracking down on Kurdish rebels and that Rice asked "for a few days" from him.

Erdogan did not specify what he meant by "speedy steps," but he has often urged the United States and Iraq to crack down on the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK. Turkish leaders say it is the responsibility of those countries to do whatever is necessary to destroy the guerrilla group's bases in northern Iraq.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071022/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey)

[clambake]

no no no yoni has confirmed this is all due to a supposed resolution.

[Wild Cobra]

I just find it interesting that conservatives are able to pick and choose which genocide is acceptable.
It's not that this genocide was acceptable. It's not. Bringing it up is politically sensitive, and the current government of Turkey had nothing to do with it. It would be like blaming the current government of Germany for the slaughter of so many Jews. It just stuipid to do so.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

It's not that this genocide was acceptable. It's not. Bringing it up is politically sensitive, and the current government of Turkey had nothing to do with it. It would be like blaming the current government of Germany for the slaughter of so many Jews. It just stuipid to do so.

Wild Cobra's arguments do not follow the basic rules of logic.

But whatever.